On the House Vote to Defund the IPCC

The climate change deniers have no one but themselves to blame for last night’s vote.

I’m talking about those who deny NATURAL climate change. Like Al Gore, John Holdren, and everyone else who thinks climate change was only invented since they were born.

Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions. I know, because I witnessed some of the behind-the-scenes planning. It is not a scientific organization. It was organized to use the government-funded scientific research establishment to achieve policy goals.

Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But when they are portrayed as representing unbiased science, that IS a bad thing. If anthropogenic global warming – and ocean ‘acidification’ (now there’s a biased and totally incorrect term) — ends up being largely a false alarm, those who have run the IPCC are out of a job. More on that later.

I don’t want to be misunderstood on this. IF we are destroying the planet with our fossil fuel burning, then something SHOULD be done about it.

But the climate science community has allowed itself to be used on this issue, and as a result, politicians, activists, and the media have successfully portrayed the biased science as settled.

They apparently do not realize that ‘settled science’ is an oxymoron.

The most vocal climate scientists defending the IPCC have lost their objectivity. Yes, they have what I consider to be a plausible theory. But they actively suppress evidence to the contrary, for instance attempts to study natural explanations for recent warming.

That’s one reason why the public was so outraged about the ClimateGate e-mails. ClimateGate doesn’t prove their science is wrong…but it does reveal their bias. Science progresses by investigating alternative explanations for things. Long ago, the IPCC all but abandoned that search.

Oh, they have noted (correctly I believe) that a change in the total output of the sun is not to blame. But there are SO many other possibilities, and all they do is dismiss those possibilities out of hand. They have a theory — more CO2 is to blame — and they religiously stick to it. It guides all of the research they do.

The climate models are indeed great accomplishments. It’s what they are being used for that is suspect. A total of 23 models cover a wide range of warming estimates for our future, and yet there is no way to test them for what they are being used for! climate change predictions.

Virtually all of the models produce decadal time scale warming that exceeds what we have observed in the last 15 years. That fact has been known for years, but its publication in the peer reviewed literature continues to be blocked.

My theory is that a natural change in cloud cover has caused most of the recent warming. Temperature proxy data from around the world suggests that just about every century in the last 2,000 years has experienced warming or cooling. Why should today’s warmth be manmade, when the Medieval Warm Period was not? Just because we finally have one potential explanation – CO2?

This only shows how LITTLE we understand about climate change…not how MUCH we know.

Why would scientists allow themselves to be used in this way? When I have pressed them on the science over the years, they all retreat to the position that getting away from fossil fuels is the ‘right thing to do anyway’.

In other words, they have let their worldviews, their politics, their economic understanding (or lack thereof) affect their scientific judgment. I am ashamed for our scientific discipline and embarrassed by their behavior.

Is it any wonder that scientists have such a bad reputation among the taxpayers who pay them to play in their ivory tower sandboxes? They can make gloom and doom predictions all day long of events far in the future without ever having to suffer any consequences of being wrong.

The perpetual supply of climate change research money also biases them. Everyone in my business knows that as long as manmade climate change remains a serious threat, the money will continue to flow, and climate programs will continue to grow.

Now, I do agree the supply of fossil fuels is not endless. But we will never actually “run out”…we will just slowly stop trying to extract them as they become increasingly scarce (translation – more expensive). That’s the way the world works.

People who claim we are going to wake up one morning and our fossil fuels will be gone are either pandering, or stupid, or both.

But how you transition from fossil fuels to other sources of energy makes all the difference in the world. Making our most abundant and affordable sources of energy artificially more expensive with laws and regulations will end up killing millions of people.

And that’s why I speak out. Poverty kills. Those who argue otherwise from their positions of fossil-fueled health and wealth are like spoiled children.

The truly objective scientist should be asking whether MORE, not less, atmospheric carbon dioxide is what we should be trying to achieve. There is more published real-world evidence for the benefits of more carbon dioxide, than for any damage caused by it. The benefits have been measured, and are real-world. The risks still remain theoretical.

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth. That it has been so successfully demonized with so little hard evidence is truly a testament to the scientific illiteracy of modern society. If humans were destroying CO2 — rather than creating more — imagine the outrage there would be at THAT!

I would love the opportunity to cross examine these (natural) climate change deniers in a court of law. They have gotten away with too much, for too long. Might they be right? Sure. But the public has no idea how flimsy – and circumstantial – their evidence is.

In the end, I doubt the IPCC will ever be defunded. Last night’s vote in the House is just a warning shot across the bow. But unless the IPCC starts to change its ways, it runs the risk of being totally marginalized. It has almost reached that point, anyway.

And maybe the IPCC leadership doesn’t really care if its pronouncements are ignored, as long as they can jet around the world to meet in exotic destinations and plan where their next meeting should be held. I hear it’s a pretty good gig.

94 Responses to “On the House Vote to Defund the IPCC”

Great article. The ends justify the means. That comes to mind after reading your article and observing how the socialist left has propagandized, pushed and outright lied attempting to push the AGW scam down the throats of the american people. I hope your not right about de-funding of IPCC which I believe needs to occur. The socialist left in our government has approriated $36,000,000,000 dollars since 2006 to study this hoax and these so called climate scientists can’t predict the climate any better than the farmers almana. It’s time the republicans fight back and stop this insanity.

That is the real problem as far as I am concerned, the misuse of science in pursuit of political goals. And the problem is hardly unique to your area of studies. I find myself regularly disgusted with studies published in my own area. All too often scientists are either following ideology instead of the evidence or prostituting themselves for a share of politically linked government money.

I fear that our professions are squandering our hard earned credibility with the the public. If this doesn’t stop, we may well wake up an find our credibility long gone and suffer the consequences.

Dr. Spencer and I just agree to disagree on almost everything. Nothing personel, I wish him the best.

First -their CO2 THEORY, is garbage, it is not even close to being possible. Past history temperature change alone versus CO2 concentrations ,just that for starters, goes along way in proving their theory has no standing.

Second– how anyone could dismiss changes in solar activity ,as not being a factor in climate change,to me is equally ridiculous, as saying the CO2 man made global warming theory, has some points.

Third– the climate models are junk ,they have been completly wrong. They all have predicted the atmospheric circulation backwords, it is the opposite of what they have predicted. They said the atm circ. would evolve more +AO and it has been evolving more -AO. They said a positive troposheric hot spot would develope near the equator due to positive feedbacks from increased CO2, that has not come about either. They predicted distinct stratospheric cooling, that has not happened. Lastly all their temperature rise predictions, are way, way, off. I wonder why?? Why, because the models have the atm. circulation wrong ,and if you can’t predict that ,you can’t predict temperature.

As they say time will tell who is right and who is wrong.

I am betting that my phase in theory ,with the sun as the driver to set it up, will be proven to be correct ,if the prolong solar minimum continues this decade.

I am not alone ,and many notables agree with my position, such as Piers Corbyn, David Archibald,Joe D’Aleo to name just a few.

If one goes back in history and plots temperature change versus an active sun or a sun in a prolong minimum state ,one will see a strong correlation, and it is not an accident.

It happens each and every single time. Just look at the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum as examples in the recent past.

Look at the Medieval Warm Period, and then look at the solar activity.

Clouds have a role ,but they are a consequence of the atmospheric circulation, which can be shown, because if nothing else past history shows, is a consequence of solar activity.

Each and every time the sun exhibits a prolong solar minimum, the atmospheric circulation tends to be -AO,each and everytime. That of course in turn is a positive for more clouds, more precip., and more extremes in weather.

High latitude volcanic activity, also seems to cause the atmospheric circulation to tend more toward a -AO, and that also according to past history ,has a correlation to prolong solar minimum periods. Just plot all major volcanic eruptions versus prolong solar minimums if you don’t believe it.

Now we don’t want to forget the QBO which is proven to be linked to solar activity, and an east QBO leads to a more -AO atmospheric circulation versus a westerly QBO.

Let’s not forget the PDO/AMO and how they effect the climate long range. Example would be a cold PDO phase leads to more La Ninas. A case for the ocean bottom being tied to solar activity when in a prolong state, can also be made, which could influence these oceanic oscillations.

Finally ,I say anyone that can put changes in solar activity aside ,is wrong. The sun is the main driver of our climate to begin with,therefore it should follow any changes of solar activity,should have some consequences, on earth’s climatic system.

I always knew pretty much that what Dr. Spencer, said today, is what he believed. It was exactly ,as I have thought. Again, no malice toward him, nothing personnel at all.

But, Salvatore, you both agree that CO2 is not the main reason for global warming. This has been hapening since the last ice age. Do you have a theory that can forecast a change to global cooling? Has this been happening since 2095?

Finally, some climate sense.
Now the question is why did they do it.
And why are they SO hostile and bent on destroying everyone who disagrees?
“Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions….It was organized to use the government-funded scientific research establishment to achieve policy goals.”

Was the only reason to get rich- by Misusing some noble but misguided fools to save the earth?

The UN and IPCC are made up of sleazy third world, have not countries, whose primary goal is to rip off the industrialized world. They have been looking for ways to levy taxes, cap and trade (among other schemes) is one of their solutions to massive wealth redistribution, and they are quite open about it.

Dr Spencer, I have been wanting to write a post on this topic for the longest time – well, at least in the six years that I’ve been blogging. What you’ve written is what I’ve wanted to write but could never quite get the words to portray the facts on the ground the way you have. Plus, my words would just be from a geology school drop-out! (calc killed the dream) and would come from general observations that the IPCC was set up with a goal already established – to regulate CO2. You have the personal first-hand knowledge I lack and are able to confirm what is, for me, only a suspicion.

Even though I don’t exclude the possibility that CO2 could be a main driver, I don’t think it’s certain. But because I don’t subscribe to the letter of the law, as written in the holy manuscripts of the IPCC, like you, am labeled a “denier”, as if I completely reject the possibility.

So be it.

With your permission, I would like to post this in its entirety on my blog.

Nice post… I totally agree with you Roy.
As far as natural goes, I took the world proxy temp graph from the 1990 IPCC report (pre hockeystick graph)and used the portion of the graph from 1000AD to 1900 AD (this has no manmade CO2 component). Fit this portion of the data with a sine way plus a small re-occuring peak temp peak (0.4C) every 225 years and matched the 1000-1900 temp graphs quite nicely. If you now just extend this modeled graph out to 2009, you will get a very good fit to the observed data with a maximum temperature aroud 2005 AD that is about .3C lower than what current thermometer data shows.(wonder how much of this .2 to .3 may be CO2 and how much could be due to all the recent modifications to temperature graphs) This graph also predicts cooling for the remainder of this century of a couple tenths of a degree. Using data alone, you can show that the most of the current warming is readily explainable by natural processes.

The 23 climate models are a joke. There is a total disconnect between the alarmist scenarios of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and the AR4 WG1 science report. It should be noted that the Summary was published before the WG1 report and the editors of the Summary , incredibly , asked the authors of the Science report to make their reports conform to the Summary rather than the other way around. When this was not done the Science section was simply ignored.
The predicted disaster scenarios are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that they do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:

“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”

What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.

The root case of the problem is that the models are not framed correctly in the first place – their inputs are set up on the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the main drver so naturally that is what comes out at the other end.
They attribute everything but a simple TSI measure to anthropogenic forcings and feedbacks. Check the IPPC figure 2-20 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
(page 203)
This figure begs all questions and is a scientific monstrosity.Scafetta’s analysis of the temperature power spectrum gives a much better idea of the empirical controls on temperature. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
IPCC Fig 2-20 should show a solar activity driver with subsets under TSI, UV variability, GCR fluctuations and solar-lunar tidal effects with solar derived feedbacks of atmospheric water vapour, Albedo (Gcr related) etc. The anthropogenic effect should be limited to anthropogenic CO2.,halocarbons, land use etc.
This is why the UK Met Office predictions have been so wrong that they gave up making seasonal forecasts. This is why the Corbyn predictions have been so much more accurate.- he bases his work on solar – lunar data which more closely models the real world climate drivers.
What is the current temperature trend?
Be­cause of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the lack of any Urban Heat Island effect the best indicator of recent trends is the Hadley – CRU Sea Surface Temperatur­e data. The 5 year moving average shows the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows a global cooling trend since then . The data shows warming from 1900- 1940 ,cooling from 1940 – about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose steadily during this entire period. There has been no net warming since 1998 – 12 years with CO2 up 6% and no net warming. ( Check the actual data at the Hadley center) Anthropoge­nic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropoge­nic CO2 contributi­on is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen and yet the global temperatur­e trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base prediction­s but in the context of declining solar activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal and Arctic Osciallati­ons a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.
The entire IPCC -Al Gore AGW paradigm is about to collapse in the face of the real world temperatur­e data.

Maybe now that you mention it, I might have reached the wrong conclusions. I hope so, because Dr. Spencer ,I like ,if for no other reason, he is trying to prove the man made global warming theory wrong.

So Cary B, I hope you are correct.

Let’s add another blunder to the wonderful global man made warming models ,to show how HORRIBLE they are.’

The models predicted droughts in Australia, as a result of El Ninos, being a constant more or less. Whoops,another blunder.

I think I am on to something with the LOW SOLAR/HIGH LATITUDE VOLCANIC ACTIVITY,WHICH RESULTS IN A MORE -AO ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION.

THIS -AO ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION, in my opinion can go a long way in explaining how the N.H. can cool down, over North America,and Europe,while the rest of the globe will not be effected as much,especially the S.H., even though the same processes are effecting the whole globe.

Geography of the N.H. ,makes the AO oscillation a much stronger player in the N.H, then in the S.H.

Reason is, so much land in the N.H. that with a -AO, can be subject to much more extensive snow cover,which in turn can have a big impact on the albedo,and thus temperature. At the same time this situation can keep the lower latitudes cooler throughout the atmosphere in contrast to the high latitudes in the N.H. ,which would serve to reinforce the -AO circulation. A positive feedback perhaps, to promote N.H. global cooling.

The IPCC has the climate change of carbon dioxide backwards. Just like Al Gore did with his “Inconvenient Truth documentary when he said about the Vostok Ice Core data that a CO2 increase came first that made the earth temperature rise. to rise. It was just the opposite, a temperature increase came first, the oceans got warmer followed by an increased release of CO2 from the oceans due to decreased solubility.

Actually carbon dioxide causes a slight cooling effect. Its concentration in the atmosphere is only around 400 ppmv compared to water vapor that can be as high as 4%, at that level around 1% of that for water vapor. It was proved after 9-11 that contrails cause cooling. With grounded air traffic (no contrails) the temperature actually increased 1 degrees centigrade for the 3 days planes were grounded compared to the 3 day temperatures before and after the grounding.

It ain’t rocket science; all clouds of water vapor shade the earth and cool it during the day. At night a cloud covered sky keeps the earth from cooling off as fast (insulating effect. However, the cooling effect during the day dwarfs the slight warming at night.

With a slight increase of CO2 in the atmosphere the cooling effect is there but it is so small one could not measure it. When this truth becomes widely known, will people start another campaign to eliminate CO2 because it cools the earth.

Thank you Dr. Spencer for this very good and, as I see it, informative article. It does however not seem like you have got much success in getting away from the climate stuff, even for a little while.
I am inclined towards believing that if cloud formation varies regardless of atmospheric Water Vapor (WV), or moisture content, i.e. more or less particulates = more or less cloud, then average insolation and therefore average temperatures will change, I can therefore only agree with anyone who says varying cloud-cover equals varying surface temperatures. In other words, it is the cloud-cover that dictates surface irradiation and not the other way round.
However if there is always enough atmospheric particulates (could the C in CO2 possibly be such a thing?) present to enable 100% cloud cover then it becomes more complex and I shall not pretend to have a “Scooby” as to what drives what. – But it then seems likely that more sunshine at the surface will promote more evaporation and therefore more clouds. – In that case it’s over to you Dr. Spencer.

However having said that, this global temperature rise of 1°F or 0.8 °C or whatever the case may be over the past 150 years cannot be anything other than a “non event” as I am quite convinced “the Earth’s temperature” varies by more than that every year. Why else should it be necessary to compare temperature records from the past 20 or 30 years to find out what the trend is?

Not so long ago we just learnt from The British Met. Office (it might as well have been from The IPCC) that 2010 has come in as the second warmest year on record since 1998. – So what, may one ask, has happened to their 20ieth century much announced “steady warming by CO2” predictions? After all, they just admitted, no warming has taken place between 1998 and 2010. – Ahh, they say; or at least their little helpers say, 1998 was a strong El Niño year. – Well, to bad they did not explain that one in 1998 when that year was proclaimed as proof of “AGW” or even of ”CAGW”, bad luck too that they so far have not mentioned that 2010 was also an El Niño year.

Maybe they dare not mention niños and niñas just in case they would soon loose their CO2 thread completely and it would become even clearer to those they seek to deceive that there must be more to climate change than warming by 0.01% of the atmosphere.

I would be more interested in what it could be that changes temperatures enough to bring the Earth in and out of glaciations. – Milankovitch Cycles? – Yes, not only possibly but maybe very likely, – however what brings those cycles on – and where in those cycles is the Earth placed at the moment?
The “tilt and wobble fluctuations” can and must affect the variations in “hemispheric seasons” but even if we add the variations of a more or less elliptical shape to the orbit, none of these effects should alter the “average insolation” (or the yearly average irradiance in watts/m² received from the Sun).
Even if we can point to fewer, or even no sunspots during earlier “cool periods” i.e. The Little Ice Age – Maunder Minimum etc, this does not automatically mean that fewer sunspots mean cooler temperatures. – In spite of a very weak Sunspot Cycle 24 it is still warmer now than it was back in the 1950ies and 60ies. – According to records, that is. – But what will happen if Sunspot Cycles 25 and 26 are also to be equally weak?
Well, those of you who are 40 years or so younger than I am, may very well find out.

Dr Spencer, Although I think that the IPCC needs to look more at natural variability (especially the roles of the PDO, AMO, oscillations) in explaining partially the increase the global temperatures, I disagree with the vote by the House of Representatives to block funding of the IPCC. My concern is that if the IPCC did not exist the governments would be more likely to be influenced by more alarmist climatologists such as those who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. The IPCC can serve as a forum for debating the level of understanding of the science of climatology. As you know, once a paper is written it has to go through the process of debate in conferences before becoming part of “normal science”. I think that the IPCC reports fulfill (not perfectly I agree) the role of analyzing the available literature. Take the example of the prediction of the sea level rise by 2100 in the FAR of between 18 cm and 55 cm. This estimate was critisized for not conveying the full range of uncertainties due to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIC). The consensus by the experts at the IPCC however was that models for describing the dynamics of the melting of the ice sheet were not advanced enough to quantify that behaviour.
My concern then is that if the IPCC is abolished policy makers may be relying on even more alarmist activist climatologists pushing their own papers which may not have been reviewed as thoroughly.

RaymondT… defund the IPCC. If the US doesn’t play ball there is no ballgame period. If the rest of the world wants to commit economic suicide let’em Rest assured however, no country will do it if the US isn’t going down with them.

I feel that one of the problems with climate science is that it is such a new field that it lacks any history.

If you want to start messing around with theories of gravity, you have Newton and Einstein looking over your shoulder; atomic physics must be done in the knowledge you are following greats like Feynman, Dirac, and so on. You may even feel a sense of humility and of perspective when considering the achievements of these giants.

But there are no heroes of climate science, and given the extreme egotism of the current age, there is a huge lure to fill that vacuum and become the hero, which any number of self-centered scientists have followed, to the inevitable detriment of the science.

Climate science is about ego, not science; there are still no climate heroes* but plenty of climate villains.

* I might nominate the person who released the Climategate e-mails as a climate hero …..

Dr. Spencer … as ever you are right on the money. Excellent synopsis of the current situation and please keep up your good work, however difficult it might be in this still hostile environment. Keep asking the questions and pointing out the inconsistencies and illogicalities. In the end the truth will out.

The IPCC’s “solution” is to throw the baby (civilization as we know it) out with the bath water and allow only “certain” people to make babies based on the “psyence” of their Grand Plan. Well, I don’t think it’s going to work, nor should it. People are promiscuous and hate to be told how to suck eggs. The only climate the IPCC is trying to change is the political, economic, and social climate of the World’s inhabitants. They’re not about anything else. Scientists worthy of the title are putting themselves and their profession at grave risk if people perceive they are supporting the United Nations and the IPCC and compromising their integrity in the process. Science Beware!

“The most vocal climate scientists defending the IPCC have lost their objectivity.”

Roy, thanks for this excellent post.

John Tierney had an interesting piece in the NYT last week, in which he discussed social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s concept of a tribal-moral community. It was also carried by many papers across the country.

These excerpts apply perfectly to the tribal-moral community of catastrophic climate science-

“Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.”

““If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.””

Normally I think colleagues should avoid criticiing each other. But in this case it’s long overdue. These purveyors of doom are no longer worthy of that basic courtesy. Please keep taking it to the public.

The science is being scrutinised by many. The high-feedback CO2-AGW scam depends on keeping critical analysis out of the ‘accepted’ publications; it holds together because there is no other candidate.

In essence it’s based on the imaginary ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling correction, in reality neutral or heating for thicker clouds, and the palaeo argument which assumes the former [and you have to do the Gore trick of eliminating the 800 year delay].

To attack such an edifice is quite easy in scientific terms, just replace CO2 palaeo heating. You do that with Mie theory/direct backscattering from upper cloud boundaries. It’s a remarkable form of AGW as aerosol pollution in a warming world slashes cloud albedo. This effectively overturns the present two-stream approximations.

The problem is that the physicists know full well that there is directed albedo from that process but if it’s published as a ‘competitor to the consensus’, the grant stream will dry up.

So, it’s left to the great army of the unpaid retirees like me: it’ll take another 6 months and the edifice will collapse.

Hopefully they’ll also defund EPA entirely, not just the CO2 implementation aspects of the EPA budget. How ironic that the only current technology capable of generating cheap dependable energy while emitting zero CO2 is not generally supported by the “warmists”. Perhaps they have an irrational fear of miniscule amounts of manmade ionizing radiation (compared to nature’s sources) similar to their fear of the equally small amounts of manmade CO2. Fortunately, science has finally confirmed what all of us thinking individuals suspected that the linear no threshold theory of cancer induction overestimates the risk at the low dose level (http://lowdose.energy.gov/). This only took about 40 y for the science to catch up with the politics. (A similar argument can probably be made for chemical carcinogens.) One can only hope that it doesn’t take another 40 y for the climate science to catch up to the politics of AGW.

Thank you for setting out your opinions on this. I don’t think there is a single thing you have said where I would find myself disagreeing with you.

It saddens me that so much money has been poured into this whole CO2 question to prove and underpin a political objective in such an underhanded way (you want alternatives to fossil fuel – pay for their development in a direct way). The numbers (cost) for mitigation just do not add up. The policy of restraint urged is either crippling of economic prosperity or retrogressive for growth in the developing world.

I guess we have to wait to see it play out at bit more, but in the meantime keep on urging sense and restraint.

Salvatore, how can you disagree with Dr. Spencer when you don’t understand what he said. He never mentioned ‘solar activity’ just one feature i.e. Total Solar Irradiance. Also, his statement about SO many other reasons indicates that yes, your reasoning is equally valid in this discussion. I’ll let you read it again.

“Oh, they have noted (correctly I believe) that a change in the total output of the sun is not to blame. But there are SO many other possibilities”

This philosophy of science was formally instituted 350 years ago in London by the small band of men, including Christopher Wren and Robert Boyle, who founded the Royal Society, the world’s oldest national academy of science. Their motto, “Nullius in verba” (“Take nobody’s word for it”) embodied the Royal Society’s founding principle of basing conclusions on observation and experiment rather than the voice of authority.

I believe Dr Roy Spencer abides by that motto. The founding members of the Royal Society would be very proud of Dr Roy Spencer.

Sadly, today’s motto of the Royal Society is “Respect the facts”… but real science does not talk about facts. Real science talks about observations, which might turn out to be inaccurate or even irrelevant.

I would suggest Dr Spencer might not sit well in the eyes of today’s Royal Society, governed by a Council of 21 Fellows. I say this because Dr Spencer is a reminder to them of how they have betrayed the motto of their founding fathers… “Nullius in verba”

I believe the wisdom of Dr Spencer is invaluable… particularly this:

“This entire controversy stems from Western governments spending tens of billions of dollars pursuing an answer to the wrong question – what is the risk of human-induced (global warming) climate change?

“The correct scientific question is: what are the causes of climate change, both natural and human?

“Once determined, the secondary question can be answered: globally, how significant are human influences compared with natural influences?

“Then the third question can be answered: how significant are human
influences on local and regional climate change compared with natural influences?”

Those models are no better than pure fictitious cartoons. Laughable at best, dangerously stupid at worst. When we have millions of dollars of test data on materials and build models of hardware made from them, our models are about 80-90% correct. We then test the hardware and tweak the model inputs to match our findings. And we get pretty good at it, maybe 95% correct in similar hardware. If we change the configuration, we are back to 80-90% and we have to test the new configuration exhaustively. These are models with a few dozen variables and closed systems.

Compare this to stupid weather models, with open systems, hundreds of variables, little or no way to clearly test any hypothesis at all because of the problems with infinite/open systems. Based on this I would suspect a success rate in the neighborhood of 5-10%, and this seems to be what they are getting. PLUS the historical ice/ocean core data that shows an ice age like clockwork every 100-110,000 years or so. Seems like no one is aware of this heartbeat of the ice ages in their models? So to suggest that they have done a nice or even a good job on these stupid models is goofy. None of them have any credibility whatsoever, and by this simple comparison, they could not hope to have any. They have virtually no data past the last 100-200 years which they can match up against and when looking at the ice ages they are a complete disconnect with reality.

The people involved are a bunch of whores, just like our political leaders. They deserve prison sentences for their criminal acts.

Roy, you and John are jewels. Thank both of you for just being yourselves and never folding under the pressure. True integraty.

What is this I hear at AccuWeather of -0.6 C global anomaly this week?? The whole global map’s starting to look rather blue but I don’t know what the base is and ol’ Al must be a globe hopping this week.

Mike, I think it is ok to re-post Dr. Spencer’s article in our respective blogs. I just reposted a big part of it, I just added a few pictures and brief personal commentary in my blog. It is sometimes hard to believe that such a large-scale global racket can persist up to this day.

Great article! There is one thing I would like to point out.
In general there have been very little public updates on the present
situation of the Wolf-Gleissberg -cycle. It seems to me that when
combining WG-cycle at prent & trend with Pda and other cycles, there
is the global temp trend. I would very much like to see more studies
and followups on that.
Thank you Roy for your great work!

“Fortunately, science has finally confirmed what all of us thinking individuals suspected that the linear no threshold theory of cancer induction overestimates the risk at the low dose level (http://lowdose.energy.gov/.”

While I agree that the LNT is inappropriate at low doses, the URL given only points to a proposed programme of work intended to study the effects of low doses. Don’t see any results though.

I think it is important to be clear that “scientists” as a whole have never supported the catastrophic warming lie. Having asked on hundreds of sites, with thousands of alarmist readers, including such luminaries as the UK Chief Scientific Advisor and the President of the Royal Society, for anybody to name 2 prominent scientists who aren’t funded by government or alarmist lobbyists who have said catastrophic warming is real my research has found that no one person has been able to do so. The environment editor of the Independent was able to name one – Professor James Lovelock – & somebody on a site in South Africa was able to name one – Professor James Lovelock – and that is it. Lovelock has, since the emails came out, largely changed his mind saying that only the sceptics have kept the subject “sane” so that leaves none.

“Catastrophic warming” is a governmental not a scientific fraud thoug to be fair scientists cannbe blamed for keeping their heads down as government spinners masquerading as scientists prepped a compliant media.

Dear Dr. Spencer,
you wrote: “The climate models are indeed great accomplishments.” My observations lead to the contrary. Since the German Weather Service uses parts of models to forecast the weather, these forecasts became increasingly less reliable.

Nice statement, Roy! I appreciate your expressing that opinion. What’s needed, at least in our country, is a very stringent set of objective “due diligence” requirements for all scientific work that is to be used as a basis for public policy decisions and implementation of public policy. The house vote is a good outcome but simply partisan. What we need is a formal process, with objective requirements, that must be met, an objective review proceedure that addresses the relevant questions about conclusions, and ensures that politicians are not allowed to go too far with too little evidence. RLS

The atmospheric ppm CO2 curve has not shown enough fluctuations during the 70s when there was an oil use crises.
This should have at least revealed a downward blip or so. It did not. Could it really be that the atmospheric increase in CO2 is entirely natural and not man made at all? There is not yet enough conclusive evidence yet to prove it was not anything other than natural variations.

Salvatore del Prete
If you´re here, I´ve spent some time exploring your “phase in” theory on Sun/QBO/PDO dependance. It shows a good dependance between low solar activity/eastern QBO and -AO. The only problem is, that QBO was discovered only in 1950s, therefore we don´t have much data from lower sun activity periods. I´ve choosen this just because it´s a good short term example, therefore we´ll see any changes almost in real time. I do see a possible flaw of your theory in recent sea ice recovery. Freezing of such amount of water releases big amount of energy into ocean. Current low Solar activity will affect land temperatures much quicker , while sea temperatures should remain relatively behind (when compared with land temperature trend). This chain of events may shorten current cold phase of PDO as well as cold phase of AMO (I think SOI and ENSO are less sensitive because southern hemisphere has much more oceans than northern). In summary, NAO may affect QBO/Sun effect on AO. I think that we cannot expect cool phases of atmospheric and oceanic oscillations “in phase” until sea ice amount stabilizes ( at least relatively.

Martin, — How all these items I have mentioned are going to phase, or not phase, remains to be seen. As I have said, I think the low solar activity provides the set up for these items to phase ,IF the low solar activity, is prolong enough. I am talking at least another 5-10 years of low solar activity which started late in year 2005.
It is going to be very interesting going forward, if solar activity remains weak. Many questions wilL finally be answered.

I am wishing for low solar activity. I rather be wrong ,then not know. I want to know ,one way or the other, and only a long period of low solar activity will allow me to know if I am right or wrong.

Not only is CO2 being demonized, the attempt to restrict/limit its atmospheric content may well be happeing just when we need it most. Folow this;

CO2 increases in the air
It corsses all geograhpical borders like a free fertilizer
Plant growth rates and dry mass yeilds increase.
They transpire less H2O
The soil moisture levels increase.
Terrestial runoffs are improved.

From 2000 to 2050 the population will about double to 10Mil.
Land becomes in demand for residential plots
Less land abvailable for food production
Increased need for agriculture productivity/efficiency
Potable water becomes a LOT more scarce

We need CO2 now more than ever, because it helps all this at relatively very low cost.

Dr Spencer, you are my hero. I am a retired geologist having studied earth’s climates over time and am now a golf course maintainence worker. In order to make simple explanations to my fellow workers I try to put the state of global warming into perspectives of what they know. In your book The Great Global Warming Blunder on page 46 you show the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa (the true believers’number 1 mantra) since 1958 to 2008. The amount 50 years ago is comparable to 1/2 the length of the portion of the top of a golf tee on a typical 150 yard par 3 hole and the subsequent increase is about 1/4 more of that same tee…a mere sliver. It is inconceivable to me how such a small fraction of the atmosphere could be responsible for the so called impending doom the earth faces. I am indebted to you for your simple explanations and for your untiring work.

I always find it entertaining to notice the irony of it all. Every conspiracy concept in the comments above could be equally applied by AGW proponents to ‘deniers’. The planet is not doomed. Human civilization is going to have a hell of a time solving the difficulties humans are causing worldwide. Warming or not. As always, humanity needs a unifying goal because at this time we cannot see eye-to-eye on a damned thing. It is this that is our greatest weakness. United we would have a chance to solve some of our problems. Divided as we are, I have no faith. It’s a great thing to throw shit back and forth at each ‘side’, problem is everyone is getting covered in fecal matter – and it stinks.

Martin, replying to Salvatore del Prete you wrote:
“Freezing of such amount of water releases big amount of energy into ocean.”
Could you better explain this concept?
Maybe it’s a silly question, but I’m unable to figure out how could freezing water release energy into the surrounding water.

Linzel says: “As always, humanity needs a unifying goal because at this time we cannot see eye-to-eye on a damned thing. It is this that is our greatest weakness.”

I *completely* disagree. Currently, anyone who is concerned about climate change is at liberty to do any number of things to mitigate it. There’s simple non-carbon energy research, home insulation, promoting mass transit, etc. The problem is not co2, or “working together”, but the need of some ethically challenged scientists, authoritarian bureaucrats and financial speculators to have a permanent free lunch courtesy of the rest of us.

The US isn’t great because everyone agrees, but because you ( the individual) have the freedom to disagree. Some very overbearing people don’t get that or are actively working to limit your liberty on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Thank you for your informed insight, especially regarding the establishment of institutions “to regulate CO2″. Regulation satisfies of the lust for power that motivates most political careers, but the financial needs of ever-growing institutions means the goal could never have been “to reduce CO2″. Otherwise, we would have seen policy to promote nuclear power, the only viable alternative to coal.

Geological activity is quite high today, yesterday was Earth also highly active, but it´s not very statistically significant yet. For example, also on 8th or 4th of February were many strong earthquakes too. Perhaps this geomagnetic storm wasn´t strong enough? However, today´s not over yet (but of course, today´s a relative term, isn´t it?)

This is the first time that I have come to this site. I have read very widely in climate science–both popular and scholarly–over the past ten years, including a couple of Roy Spencer’s books. I would like to see Roy respond to some of the comments here about climate mechanisms. As I read his books, he accepts the basics of standard climatology. He would have a hard time teaching the subject if he did not. He does not deny that CO2 causes warming, that temperatures have increased, that CO2 and other greenhouse gases result from burning fossil fuels, etc. His difference is that, citing his cloud theory, he thinks that climate sensitivity is much lower than the estimates of nearly all other climate scientists. So, Roy, why don’t you respond and set straight the odd theories expressed here? If you go to the pro-AGW sites, like Real Climate or Skeptical Science, the essayists are not shy about correcting basic scientific errors in comments. Why not on this site?

Martin, again it is not going to be 100% ,but just look at it this way.

Go back to say year 1998, just to pick a year, and look at the geological activity from 1998 -2006(active sun) ,then contrast that with years 2006- now,(quiet sun), and you will then see how much of an increase, there has been in geologic activity in association with the prolong solar minimum ,which we entered in late 2005, through now ,in contrast to years 1998-2006.

Do a Google search on Trofim Lysenko. Lysenko was an agronomist in the Soviet Union who had some novel ideas on growing crops, and promised he could make two crops grow where one had grown before. This was good news to Stalin, who had largely destroyed Soviet agriculture with his policy of collectivisation, and Lysenko rose high in Stalin’s councils. Most of his ideas on crop raising were based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which geneticists held to be impossible. Those geneticists who spoke out against Lysenko’s ideas were, with Stalin’s acquiescence, either executed, or sent to prison camps. ( The CAGW lot haven’t actually executed anyone or had them imprisoned, but, from their comments, they would like to. ) In 1948 Kruschev declared genetics to be “a bourgeois pseudoscience,” and its study was banned till the mid 1960 when Lysenko’s research and experiments were examined and declared to be fraudulent.

Lysenkoism is defined as;

The manipulation or distortion of the scientific process in order to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.

And speaking of heredity, take a look at the blood line of the IPCC. The IPCC is the offspring of the United Nations Environmental Programme ( UNEP ) and the World Meteorological Organisation ( WMO )

The past record of the UNEP:

1) Acid rain (remember that?) Took their water samples from lakes acidified by pine trees.
2) The hole in the ozone layer. Turns out it’s caused by cosmic rays, ( which is why it is over the South Pole, dummy.)
3) AND THE BIGGIE. They managed to get DDT banned. Until the UN quietly lifted the ban in 2006, there were about 1 million preventable deaths from malaria per year due to the ban or about 50 million total.

1, About acid rains: I don´t know for sure, I´ve seen loads of coniferous forests destroyed by seemingly mysterious reason. A slow recovery occured when SO2 filtres were installed. (could have been local pollution also)
2, I´m curious about this particular theme. I´ve heard loads of stuff about ozone layer being destroyed by combination of Cl (I´ve heard about CFC photolysis being 10 times slower than expected) and nacreous clouds and the process being enhanced by low temperatures and low air pressure (mainly during winter). Why ozone hole occured in high solar activity period, if it´s caused by cosmic rays? High solar activity means less cosmic rays, because they´re affected by solar activity aren´t they? I´ve also heard about recent ozone hole recovery – why does it occur just today?
3, About DDT ban: UN (and WHO) didn´t lift the ban on DDT completely, they just permitted it for indoor use for protection of households (if I´m correctly informed)

To Martin; 1) If you want to measure the pH of rain, collect the rain and do it. ( Rain is naturally slightly acid.) Don’t measure the pH of lake water in soils rendered acid by coniferous forests.
2) The “solar wind” does not stop all the cosmic rays. If you still believe that CFCs are the culprit, can you explain how they know how to head for the South Pole? Charged particles, such as cosmic rays WILL head for a magnetic pole.
3) DDT was being used “off label” as a crop spray and this was said to cause thinning of the egg shells of large raptors. You are quite correct – its use is now permitted indoors, on mosquito nets and on inside walls, where it is proving to be very effective in reducing the numbers of cases of malaria. If the UNEP had done this 50 years ago, instead of a blanket ban, 50 million lives would have been saved.
These decisions by the UNEP don’t give me a lot of confidence in it’s offspring, the IPCC.

The crux of the matter (AGW Theory) is that CO2 causes atmospheric temperatures to rise. All else hinges on this one point.

Trouble is, I’ve been searching for the credible science that proves the point. I’ve been at it for over three years. I’ll know it when I runacross it….I’m still searching.

Anyone have a link to the research? Not just theory, but something that underlies the theory. I am not interested in a computer program. Something that has been observed in the natural world would fit just right.

Please send me a link to the research.

In the meantime, I’ll be stoking the wood stove – boy, is it cold outside (Connecticut, USA).

Baxter75:
“While I agree that the LNT is inappropriate at low doses, the URL given only points to a proposed programme of work intended to study the effects of low doses. Don’t see any results though.”

They don’t make it easy do they. Check out this interview with Dr. Antone Brooks retired Technical Research Director of the DOE Low Dose Program:

NS: Can you summarize in lay persons’ terms the findings of the Low Dose Program?

Brooks: The data generated by the research in the low dose region demonstrated that the biological responses seen following exposure to low doses of radiation are very different than those observed following high doses. The body can detect and respond to low doses of radiation by activating a number of genes and proteins that help protect the body against damage from that exposure and from subsequent exposures. These responses are called “adaptive responses” and are widely observed in the low dose region.

Exposure to low doses of radiation have been demonstrated to lower the number of free radicals in the body, protect the cells against transformation (changes that produce cancer), kill pre-cancer cells through a process of programmed cell death (apoptosis), activate immune responses and to lengthen the time between radiation exposure and the induction of cancer. It has also been established that exposure to the same amount of radiation (dose) over a short period of time is much more effective in producing biological changes than exposure of the same amount of radiation over a longer period of time (dose-rate).

Thus, not only the amount of radiation but the time over which the radiation is given is important. It has been discovered that if radiation deposits energy in a single cell that this cell sends messages to other cells and that protective responses are triggered in the whole tissue not just in the cells that are “hit” by the radiation. The body is responding to the radiation exposure as a unit to protect against the potential damage from the radiation and it is not responding as a series of individual cells. Many processes and biological systems are in place to protect cells and tissues from radiation damage. All these processes support the concept that at low doses and dose-rates the amount of damage and risk for the development of cancer or genetic effects are decreased below that predicted from exposure to high doses.

The annual cycle could be explained because the ozone hole aways happen after the austral winter, that is after the Sun did not shine over that atmospheric part of the globe for a long time.
This should reduce the atmospheric O2 to O3 conversion due to the missing Sun’s UV emission at 185nm.
Note that ozone production due to the UV exposure of the oxygen is not an efficient process and this explain why the hole remain for a while during the spring.

To Martin: The influx of cosmic rays to the Earth is dependent on the solar wind, which seems to be related to sunspot activity – more sunspots, more solar wind to repel cosmic rays. Could the annual cycle in the size of the hole in the ozone layer have anything to do with the fact that the Earth’s axis is tipped relative to the ecliptic, and so the Sun does not rise for six months in the Antarctic?

97% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere each year is from natural sources, and the remaining 3% entering the atmosphere is from human activity. Fair enough… I’ll accept the IPCC on this.

This being the case, can someone then explain why the IPCC expects us to believe that the 3% CO2 emitted from human activity each year is so very very seriously dangerous to planet earth, while the overwhelming 97% CO2 contributed each year by nature is not dangerous at all?

It seems to me, this is exactly what various people want us to believe e.g. the IPCC… certain politicians… certain scientific institutions… certain universities… certain scientists… certain economists… certain elements of the media… those with green environmental tendencies.

This idea is simply ludicrous! Our 3% CO2 annual contribution is not material and is surely, statistically insignificant… almost to the point that even if all human activity did not exist, it would have no discernible impact at all.

James Hansen and other assorted Green and/or environmental activists with an irrational hatred of fossil fuels were the ideal vehicle for the UN to use for their plan to transfer wealth from the West to developing countries. Financiers such as Al Gore saw a great way to make billions and saw to the publicity and Hollywood promotion, but just who used who first is a moot point.

Production of extra CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels was probably the only factor that could be used to try and sheet home blame for alleged “unprecedented” warming to coal and oil and hey presto – no matter how ridiculous the concept in the face of all the major factors and forces affecting climate, the theory of AGW was born.

Ottmar Edenhofer is a German economist currently co-chair of Working group III of the IPCC and was a lead author for the Fourth Assessment Report

In an interview with NZZ am Sonntag on November 14 2010 before Cancun, he let the UNIPCC cat out of the bag.

Edenhofer freely admitted that the goal of Climate Policy is to transfer wealth from the West to the Third World by imposing economy eviscerating carbon caps on the West.

Edited excerpts from that interview:-

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): “The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

Google NZZ am Sonntag for the original in German.
An English translation is available

Thanks for nailing the facts, or lack of them, on this issue, Roy. I have a hypothesis that I think is much less risky than AGW: Ordinary people, even non-scientists, have a marvellous, instinctive ability to detect when they’re being lied to. Hence, in Australia, whose current political ruling class is a captive of AGW propaganda like few other countries on earth, the people aren’t buying it: http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1849/people-are-not-buying-the-climate-scare. However, the Australian Government, relying on Green votes to stay in power, is committed to going it alone and introducing a carbox tax, which, on current trends, will annihilate the ruling left-of-centre Labour Party at the next federal election.

Roy Spencer: “The truly objective scientist should be asking whether MORE, not less, atmospheric carbon dioxide is what we should be trying to achieve. There is more published real-world evidence for the benefits of more carbon dioxide, than for any damage caused by it. The benefits have been measured, and are real-world. The risks still remain theoretical.”

How can you say this when you’ve seen ice core graphs of CO2 and seen where CO2 is projected to be heading? Those graphs aren’t hockey sticks afterall, they are scythes.

The CO2 rise is a completely uncharacteristic breach to the climate system. When was the last time CO2 soared like this in geological history?

Why would we want to risk bumping CO2 level up so sharply while substantial theoretical risks remain on the table? Such an elevation isn’t proven safe by any stretch of confidence, mainly because a large sudden jump in CO2 has both significant radiative effects and significant effects on ocean pH. How can any of the marginal benefits possibly outweigh the potential risk? Even if that risk is theoretical?

How far would CO2 levels have to be threatening to go before you were up there in front of the media sounding alarm about it and saying we should reduce emissions immediately? 1000ppm? 3000ppm? 5000ppm? Is there no level at which, despite risk being theoretical, you would decide the situation was quite alarming enough to take action to prevent it? Surely we don’t need to prove danger to 95% signfiicance for there to be a problem.

Some paleclimatologic studies say that when co2 crosses 800 ppm there are some drastic, abrupt changes in planetary circulation, that can be catastrophic for human argicultural habits. But that is a long way to go.

Actually, I think this is all political posturing, I believe the same bill has a clause to defund assistance to homeless vetrans and many other flippant proposals. They can all say they had their moments of fame, the real budget is yet to come. Please remember to compliment your congresssman for the clause defunding your personal gremlin and wish them good luck next time.

The actual tax on BC nat gas is $1 per gigajoule which costs $5 per gigajoule. On July 1, 2012 the carbon taxes will increase by 50%. I will then pay a tax of $1.50 on a gigajoule of nat gas which I use for space and water heating.

This is outrageous! I’m being heavily taxed to take a shower, wash clothes and dishes, and to heat my house. Fortunately, Metro Vancouver has a mild climate.

There are no free passes on these taxes for those who live in the cold regions of the province. Indeed, there are no free passes at all on carbon taxes.

RE: Item 3

The province banned the sale of certain incandescent light bulbs on Jan 1, 2012. It didn’t occur to these the guys that CFL’s can not be used out of doors like in my carport or porch light.

I had a CFL expire well before its rated service life of 10,000 hours. I took it a part and found a resistor had cracked in half and two other resistors with severe heat damage like these were grey back. I also recovered 5 g of copper from the inductance coils and transformer and the leads of the resistors, diodes and transistors. This bulb also contains lead-tin solder, brass and aluminium and iron. These CFL’s are not at all enviromentally friendly.

The copper in 1,000,000 bulbs is worth $50,000 and most are just thrown away in the trash.

I’m declaring war on these phony climate scientists. The first battle will take place a in few weeks when the climate Kauna Kevin T comes to SFU to give a seminar. Stay tuned for “The Showdown at SFU.”

ATTN: Roy

The seminar series has no “skeptics”. How would you like to come to SFU and give a seminar. I’ll contact Prof. Colin Jones and convince him to issue you invite. I’ll make him an offer he just can’t refuse.

NB: This mongraph is 224 pages. This book is not about climate science.

By analyzing a number of time series influenced by climate, they found that the earth has global climate cycles of 50-70 years with an average periodicity of about 60 years and with cool and warm phases of 30 years each. The first two chapters have the results of their analyses. See Table 2 page 53 and Fig. 2.23 pafe 54.

The last warm phase began in ca 1970-75 (aka The Great Climate Shift) and ended in ca 2000. The global warming from ca 1975 is due in part to this warm phase. A cool phase has started and should last about 30 years.

Several others studies have found this 60 year cycle. During the cool phase La Nina years usually out number
El Nino years as was the case from ca 1940-70.

An excellent and very timely artcle – in light of this discussion – just appeared on Master Resource. It contrasts the treatment of economics by its professional associations compared to climate science, and finds the IPCC discourages objective scientific inquiry.

I would like to issue a challange to all the combined scientific and technical communities of experts of the planet, while using all the financial and material resources of the entire earth, to embark on the mission of increasing the average global temperature by 1 degree C in the next five decades or so (of course, here we are assuming that a little warming would be a good thing for all life on earth and therefore desirable). When we get the eventual answer that such a thing is not within human capability, we are faced with the question: if we can’t do it on purpose, how the hell can we be doing it by accident? Logic does not require any math or modeling.

“I would like to issue a challange to all the combined scientific and technical communities of experts of the planet, while using all the financial and material resources of the entire earth, to embark on the mission of increasing the average global temperature by 1 degree C in the next five decades or so”

China was exporting steam coal at $27/tonne in 2003.
They are now importing coal at $120/tonne.

Sorry, but the world would bankrupt itself attempting to meet the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ Projections.

Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world, which currently has 4.7 GW of fossil fired generating capacity ordered two Russian 1 GW nuclear reactors on the 25th of February. They can’t afford to burn coal, gas or oil.

Vietnam, another poor country, which has 8.7 GW of electric generating capacity, half of which is hydro ordered 2 GW of Russian nuclear reactors and another 2 GW of Japanese nuclear reactors last year. They have 3 years worth of coal left and they can’t afford to import coal.

10 years ago there were 4 major coal exporters in Asia. China,India,Indonesia and Australia. Today China and India are importers and Indonesia is beginning to implement export restrictions.

The EU imports 40% of its steam coal.
In South America there is only 1 major exporter, Columbia. In Africa there is only 1 major exporter, South Africa.

The big remaining piles of coal in the world are landlocked and a long way from major population centers. The Siberian fields in Russia and the Powder River Basin in Wyoming/Montana. The cost of moving a ton of coal overland by rail is 3 cents per ton mile.

In light of the realities of the economics of the Global Coal Market the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ scenario can only be described as nonsense.

OK, I read the expose. While I am a pretty good analyser, what strikes me is that he makes a point that Roy made a lucky guess at the parameters used.

Goody.

What really irks me is that the AGW crowd has the burden of proof that their theory is right!
Maybe they have a point that human caused CO2 could increase atmospheric temperatures somewhat, but why all the hysteria?

What I am looking for are some actual observations (not from a computer model) that demonstrate that their theory is correct.

And, the AGW crowd should be comfortable discussing (or even debating) their points with credible scientists who have a differing view. I have yet to see that debate.

Hiding behind Al Gore and the IPCC is not the mark of a confident scientist.

Dr Spencer,
Sir, your evidence based approach to climate confirms you as a stalwart of science. Comments in this thread suggest that the IPCC has an agenda that extends into political, social and economic domains and is one that is largely concerned with the redistribution of wealth.

Former Labour (Socialist) Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, content not only to impose her brand of socialist dogma on the hapless folk of New Zealand is now the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programe, the third-highest UN position. Know that her agenda is entirely associated with wealth redistribution. The IPCC set a stage in which the UN can acquire currency – carbon credits – orchestrated by the cultivation of fear through climate uncertainty driven by anthropogenic activity. It is age old politics: create a problem, orchestrate the concern, create a solution.

The Ministry of We Know Best, otherwise sometimes referred to as ‘Big Brother’ or the UN, are very very astute political folk. Unfortunately many scientists are naive boffins, easily manipulated by funding, adulation and security – like all of us. This is not an issue of science – and ultimately whether science shows the whole AGW null hypothesis to be proved – but an issue of power and politics. The sooner this is appreciated, in my view, the better.

I fear however, that there are many parallels with the 1930′s in the present. I sincerely hope this proves not to be the case and I am quite wrong. The capacity for humankind to do good, to reason wisely, to exercise science honestly and ethically are the qualities we require. You Dr Spencer, stand out as a beacon of non-politicised science and reason. Thank you.

I would be more willing to identify as “green” if the adherents of the current movement were about the science of the movement and not the religion.

It is part of good science to admit weaknesses and strengths of an idea objectively. It is the nature of religions to claim ownership of absolute truth and to effective censor ideas or counter-truths they do not agree with. When the environmental movement becomes about science then I can support it.

Hearing the weaknesses of current models makes me more willing to support the idea of global warming.

The Navier-Stokes equations might not even be closed in 3d (clay institute of math problem) but we use radical oversimplifications to make the climate models. We have to, it is more computing power to solve those equations for the oceans and the atmosphere than Moore’s law is expected to have for another 50 years. Conspiracy theorists out there would say that we have that now.

Dr. Roy – as a scientist if I ask you if the permanent melting of the north pole is a bad thing you only get one answer: “what is your measure of bad”. Without a measure of goodness the question is unanswerable. Is “good” measured in volume of ice on the north pole, sea levels, or something more human-friendly? If I ask you if an increase in the CO2 level by a factor of 100x is a good thing or a bad thing, as a scientist you can only answer one thing: “what is your measure of good”. Without a measure of goodness this is an unanswerable question.

“Recent research has also clarified our understanding of a warming trend in the atmosphere above the lowest layers near the Earth’s surface. By reducing errors in temperature measurements, a warming in the tropical upper troposphere, 10 to 15 kilometers (roughly 6 to 10 miles) above the surface, is now apparent in observations, thus reconciling different measurement data and model simulations (Thorne, 2008). A new method based on wind observations (Allen and Sherwood, 2008) shows a similar warming trend in the upper troposphere, consistent with model results.”

This is the first I have heard of these claims to have found the long missing “tropical hotspot” predicted by climate models.
Do you have an opinion on these papers, especially Thorne? Did they just massage the data until it gave them what they wanted or are these “error reductions” legitimate? What does this mean for the climate change controversy? Thanks.

Brilliant analysis on the very unfortunate co-opting of science by leftist politicians. The term science is, as you certainly know, derived from the Latin: scientia – knowledge. And I had to laugh out loud at your ‘settled science’ comment – is is truly the greatest oxymoron of them all. Sadly, a very dangerous one economically.

Dr. Spencer, your insight is fabulous, so keep up the good work! Next week I expect to celebrate (not really) my 87th birthday, and cogitating over all those the years, I can recall many theories advanced by self-promoters that eventually gained an unprized spot at the bottom of the rubbish pile. The unscientific AGW war on carbon is a prime candidate for such burial, and your efforts will assist in eventually ensuring a just repose.